666

yeshuasavedme · Nov 19, 2005

whitestar said:
Hank is the only one saying this..its not new!

My own opinion -based upon what I know from experience- of HH, is that he has never had a new idea -or an original idea.
If you can discuss the doctrines from Scripture, yourself, then I think that would be better than pasting long discussions of books and the men who wrote them and what those men say or said.

Can you prove your beliefs from Scripture? -if so, show them without pasting other's opinions. I'd like to debate you, not the books you paste.

Jipsah · Nov 19, 2005

ikester said:
as for Nero.....he never fulfilled Daniel.

Who was emperor when sacrifice and oblation ceased?

Jipsah · Nov 19, 2005

ForeverEndeavor said:
I think it's quite obvious that Nero was not the antichrist.

There's no "the" antichrist in Scripture. Nero and the caesars immediate following him were almost certainly St. John's "beast" whether or not anyone's doctrine allows them to see/admit it.

ForeverEndeavor · Nov 19, 2005

By "the antichrist" I mean the one told about in Revelation. I think this verse sums it up:

1Jo 2:18
(18) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

So, of course there are others who were "anti-christ", when we address "the antichrist" we are talking about the one during the events of Rev., Matt, and daniels 70th week.

whitestar · Nov 19, 2005

yeshuasavedme said:
My own opinion -based upon what I know from experience- of HH, is that he has never had a new idea -or an original idea.
If you can discuss the doctrines from Scripture, yourself, then I think that would be better than pasting long discussions of books and the men who wrote them and what those men say or said.

Can you prove your beliefs from Scripture? -if so, show them without pasting other's opinions. I'd like to debate you, not the books you paste.

I did an 'oops' here...you quoted me as saying Hank IS the only one saying this...I meant to type, isn't the only one saying this and its not a new idea....

yeshuasavedme, as far as debating you, I already tried that once and you mocked me and any source I posted and you continue with the mocking even on this post...I have no interest in deabting anyone that engages in such manner....that is not considered 'debating' mocking those that disagree with you. I use the books and commentaries to show people that first, this isn't just my idea I came up with out of the blue...second, its one of many acceptable views ... Third, they explain it better then I can...

No one ever said this idea was an orginal ideas of Hanks...he only presents it in story fourm just as the Left Behind authors did....their idea is also an acceptable view, and not a new one either, they present it also in a fictional story fourm too. Hank better NOT come up with an orginal idea...'something new' because God's word does not change.

Everyone seems to assume that by saying the beast has come and gone that means those of us that believe this, are also saying Jesus has returned too....that is NOT true. I am still looking forward to the Second Coming of Jesus just like everyone else is. So is Hank and so are most Christians.

God bless
WhiteStar

whitestar · Nov 19, 2005

ForeverEndeavor said:
By "the antichrist" I mean the one told about in Revelation. I think this verse sums it up:

1Jo 2:18
(18) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

So, of course there are others who were "anti-christ", when we address "the antichrist" we are talking about the one during the events of Rev., Matt, and daniels 70th week.

That is the one I addressed too.

ForeverEndeavor · Nov 19, 2005

Here's the problem I see: It seems obvious to me that most people who beleive a pre-trib rapture, beleive it because that's what they've been told all their lives and they get offended when someone tries to tell them different (which I can understand because I did the same thing). Then there's the people who looked into it themselves. Seems to me that those people who were like the bereans usually discovered that they were not taught correctly. Those people are either continually learning (even though they may not have it quite figured out yet) or have a pretty good idea what the bible says. If you're in this group, it's probably because you learned not to trust everything you are taught even if you totally respect the one teaching it to you (my pastor teaches pre-trib but I admire him anyway).

Anyway, to get to the point, it seems to me that alot of people have rejected the pre-trib theory and have gone on to make the same mistake with a new theory. When I hear comments like "I beleive this theory, I can't really explain it though" or "Hank Hanagraph (sp?) could explain it better than me", it tells me that they are making the same mistake as some people make with the pre-trib theory. They have accepted the theory as fact without even fully understanding it and without completely studying it. I beleive it's a great idea o take a look at someone's theory that differs from yours and see if it's true. But don't assume it is until you know, really know what you're talking about.

whitestar · Nov 19, 2005

ForeverEndeavor said:
Here's the problem I see: It seems obvious to me that most people who beleive a pre-trib rapture, beleive it because that's what they've been told all their lives and they get offended when someone tries to tell them different (which I can understand because I did the same thing). Then there's the people who looked into it themselves. Seems to me that those people who were like the bereans usually discovered that they were not taught correctly. Those people are either continually learning (even though they may not have it quite figured out yet) or have a pretty good idea what the bible says. If you're in this group, it's probably because you learned not to trust everything you are taught even if you totally respect the one teaching it to you (my pastor teaches pre-trib but I admire him anyway).

Yea my pastor and pretty much my whole church believe in the pre-trib rapture too...and like you, I respect and admire the preacher anyway. I was also raised with the pre-trib rapture...never knew anything else. But as others started presenting some other ideas, in which I argued against too but I didn't mock them, it started dawning on me some of the stuff they were saying made sense...so I started studying more on my own. I don't ever want to be so inflexable I cannot learn something I didn't see in scriptures before.

Anyway, to get to the point, it seems to me that alot of people have rejected the pre-trib theory and have gone on to make the same mistake with a new theory. When I hear comments like "I beleive this theory, I can't really explain it though" or "Hank Hanagraph (sp?) could explain it better than me", it tells me that they are making the same mistake as some people make with the pre-trib theory. They have accepted the theory as fact without even fully understanding it and without completely studying it. I beleive it's a great idea o take a look at someone's theory that differs from yours and see if it's true. But don't assume it is until you know, really know what you're talking about.

I explained why I am using these other references...what I didn't mention was I have a learning disablity and its very difficult for me to put these in my own words. I have two things going on...I am still learning it...so far nothing has gone against scriptures that I have found..it makes sense to me (so far), lines up with all the propheties very well...I am NOT set in stone on this view...as I said I am still studying it but am leaning heavily towards it. This view makes more sense then anything I have ever read or studied before.

I have always used other websites or bible commentaries or direct scriptures in many replies such as this because I really do not know how to explain things better. I am sorry if my way of expressing my views bothers people...that is just the way I do things and always have. Whenever I try to put things in my own words, if I make one little mistake everyone jumps all over me....so then then why should I do it that way? Or everyone thinks I am saying something totally different then what I said and I get a bunch of replies that aren't at all what I was looking for in the first place. I do the best I can in commincating to others, but when its done in my own words, the misunderstanding are HUGE and its very frustrating...I don't know how to make myself clearer so I use other people's words.

When I was still believing in the pre-trib rapture, I did the excate same things I am doing here...I used scriptures, bible commentaries and other sources. I even took notes when listening to Dr. Jermiah on the Christian radio station explain what 'kept from the hour of trail' meant one time and used that in posts! I guess if folks don't like the way I communicate they can put me on ingore. This is the way I am...

(P.S. on the GA the athesit really hate my style of commincating)

God bless
WhiteStar

FreeinChrist · Nov 19, 2005

ForeverEndeavor said:
Here's the problem I see: It seems obvious to me that most people who beleive a pre-trib rapture, beleive it because that's what they've been told all their lives and they get offended when someone tries to tell them different (which I can understand because I did the same thing). Then there's the people who looked into it themselves. Seems to me that those people who were like the bereans usually discovered that they were not taught correctly. Those people are either continually learning (even though they may not have it quite figured out yet) or have a pretty good idea what the bible says. If you're in this group, it's probably because you learned not to trust everything you are taught even if you totally respect the one teaching it to you (my pastor teaches pre-trib but I admire him anyway).

You are making assumptions. Do you know what is said about those who assume?

I wasn't raised pretrib at all. The pastors that influenced me growing up were postmil or posttrib (and maybe premil, but not dogmatic). It was through "looking into it" myself that I came to a pretrib viewpoint. Through inductive study. After 30 plus years posttrib.

And one of the things that adds confirmation to my conviction that it is pretrib is seeing the manner in which nonpretribbers go at preribbers in a personal manner: we 'aren't Bereans', 'just believe what we are told', 'don't read for ourselves', were 'raised pretrib' and never question'. (where is that rolling eyes smilie?)

ForeverEndeavor · Nov 19, 2005

To WHITESTAR:

I am so glad you are seeking the truth and that you haven't made a decision without all the facts yet. Most people never get that far. If I can make a suggestion, you mentioned not finding anything wrong with the theory. I would recommend taking that one step further and instead of taking a stance on something because you don't find fault with it, take a look at what is clear and make that what you beleive. I think that hearing others' input can be essential to seeing the scriptures the way they are meant but it can be dangerous when you look at scripture with pre-assumptions. I'm not saying that you are doing that but we both know that there are way too many theories out there and only one of them can be right. I think what you have done is recognized inconsistencies with the pre-trib theory you were taught and looked for the truth. Good job recognizing that. It takes some humility which alot of people just don't have.

Anyway, to address a couple concerns I have about the post-trib theory:

first, we are told:

1Th 5:9
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

There's no reason to beleive that doesn't apply to the wrath of God. It may be tempting to say "we know there's no pre-trib rapture so this must not apply to the end times". But I think it does fit in without a pre-trib rapture.

Secondly, it seems to me the main basis for the post-trib theory is where we know the bible clearly states "immediately after the tribulation" in one or more places. The problem again is that we need to distinguish between what the tribulation actually is. We generally are taught that there is a 7 year "tribulation" period. Here again we need to get away from what we were taught previously. The bible doesn't assign a 7 year time period to the tribulation. Only to Daniels 70th week. So, if you just assume the scripture is as simple as it seems, you would assume the rapture is placed exactly where it seems to be described. We see the multitude in heaven at the 6th seal. We also see the angels "gather his elect" from the four winds:

Rev 14:14-15
(14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
(15) And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

I beleive this is at the same point in time as the multitude in heaven. John was told:

Rev 10:11
(11) And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

I think the timeline starts again (after the parenthetical stories in chapter 12 and 13) and that the bowl judgements are part of the wrath of God and coincide with the trumpet judgements.

This would still support the idea that "we are not appointed to wrath", that His coming will be "after the tribulation of those days", he will come "on the clouds" (visibly) and that the Rapture would be at the exact time that it is listed in Revelation! Oh yeah, if you look at the events in Matt 24, you will notice the same events described as the seals talk about. We then see a description of the rapture:

Mat 24:30-31
(30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
(31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

If taken chronologically, this event happens at the same time as the multitude in heaven and the gathering from the four winds! It all adds up!

ForeverEndeavor · Nov 19, 2005

FreeinChrist said:
You are making assumptions. Do you know what is said about those who assume?

I wasn't raised pretrib at all. The pastors that influenced me growing up were postmil or posttrib (and maybe premil, but not dogmatic). It was through "looking into it" myself that I came to a pretrib viewpoint. Through inductive study. After 30 plus years posttrib.

And one of the things that adds confirmation to my conviction that it is pretrib is seeing the manner in which nonpretribbers go at preribbers in a personal manner: we 'aren't Bereans', 'just believe what we are told', 'don't read for ourselves', were 'raised pretrib' and never question'. (where is that rolling eyes smilie?)

Gimme a break. what assumptions did I make? I was VERY clear that my view of why people beleive pre-trib is my OPINION! Don't give me that "making assumptions" junk. By the way, you claim you came to the pre-trib viewpoint through your own study. What scripture clearly indicates there will be a rapture BEFORE the tribulation (without first ASSUMING a pre-trib rapture)? I have been asking this for days and have not gotten viable response.

If you're going to challenge me, challenge what I give as FACT, not my opinions.

FreeinChrist · Nov 19, 2005

ForeverEndeavor said:
Gimme a break. what assumptions did I make? I was VERY clear that my view of why people beleive pre-trib is my OPINION! Don't give me that "making assumptions" junk.

I spelled them out, FE. And opinions can include assumptions, so whether it was just your opinion or not is irrevelent.

By the way, you claim you came to the pre-trib viewpoint through your own study. What scripture clearly indicates there will be a rapture BEFORE the tribulation (without first ASSUMING a pre-trib rapture)? I have been asking this for days and have not gotten viable response.

Oh, I think you have gotten viable responses. And quite a few pretribbers are not posting lately. How did I get to pretrib?
-Studied Genesis and saw:
Gen 18:24 "Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep {it} away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it?

Gen 18:25 "Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are {treated} alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" and I compared it to what happens to "those who dwell on the earth" in Revelation.
- Studied Daniel, and saw that the Anointed is "cutoff but not for himself" at the end of 69 weeks, and then looked for the 70th week after the resurrection, or even the end of the last 3 1/2 years.
- Spent two years in an Inductive study of Revelation an noted the Greek, the key words and phrases, cross-referenced the symbols, time phrases,etc. Came to the conclusionn that the church is gone prior to Jesus opening the seals, and is represented by the 24 elders who are redeemed men from every tribe, nation, tongue and people which does not fit with the 12 patriarchs and 12 apostles as implied by some.
- and I studied Zechariah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah - compared to the history of Israel
- and much more....but I wonder if it is worth the effort to explain. http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZZzebXXX

If you're going to challenge me, challenge what I give as FACT, not my opinions.

hmmm, did I use the word "challenge"?
No, I didn't.
I suggest you calm down.

ForeverEndeavor · Nov 19, 2005

ummmm....okay, so those verses obviously have something to do with this verse:
1Th 5:9
(9) For God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Do you think I disagree with this? If you do, I suggest you go back and read what I wrote. The problem is, you are making "the tribulation" the same as Gods wrath. This is not the case.

hmmm, did I use the word "challenge"?
No, I didn't.
I suggest you calm down.

Do you not think it's possible to challenge someone without using the word challenge? Come on.

FreeinChrist · Nov 19, 2005

ForeverEndeavor said:
ummmm....okay, so those verses obviously have something to do with this verse:
1Th 5:9
(9) For God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Do you think I disagree with this? If you do, I suggest you go back and read what I wrote. The problem is, you are making "the tribulation" the same as Gods wrath. This is not the case.

I disagree.
It is God who determines the time for the end. It is Jesus who opens the seals and things happen on earth. It is from heaven that fire is thrown down on earth and then the 7 angels who follow sound trumpets from heaven - and bad things happen on earth...and His wrath is completed (as in brought to agoal) in the vials.

ForeverEndeavor · Nov 19, 2005

So you think the tribulation = Gods Wrath? You think they are synonymous? How about backing that up with some scripture?

By the way, if you're going to argue with me, make sure you know what I said. You are giving arguments against things I agree wih. And let's not have any more statements that are your opinions being presented as fact. If it is a fact, give the reference.

whitestar · Nov 19, 2005

ForeverEndeavor said:
To WHITESTAR:

I am so glad you are seeking the truth and that you haven't made a decision without all the facts yet. Most people never get that far. If I can make a suggestion, you mentioned not finding anything wrong with the theory. I would recommend taking that one step further and instead of taking a stance on something because you don't find fault with it, take a look at what is clear and make that what you beleive. I think that hearing others' input can be essential to seeing the scriptures the way they are meant but it can be dangerous when you look at scripture with pre-assumptions. I'm not saying that you are doing that but we both know that there are way too many theories out there and only one of them can be right. I think what you have done is recognized inconsistencies with the pre-trib theory you were taught and looked for the truth. Good job recognizing that. It takes some humility which alot of people just don't have.

Thank you for your kind words...
One of the things I do when in a discussion, even if I don't know everything yet on a certain view, is post it anyway...sometimes I don't even agree with a view I debate, but I do it to see how well it holds up being challenged through the bible (of course)...if it falls apart or starts getting cracks in it, then I start looking closer. For instance this is what you are doing in exposing 'cracks' in the pre-trib rapture idea. As I used to debate those with other ideas, I could only deny those cracks (lack of scriptures) for only so long. If what I am studying now starts doing the same thing, then it will become apparent in time and I will abandon this point of view.

Are you post trib? So far in reading your post I haven't been able to pin down your view point very well and so its been difficult for me to follow your line of thinking here.

On your orginal post on here you had this:

This calls for wisdom: Let the person who has understanding figure out the number of the beast, because it is the number of a person. Its number is 666.
(Rev 13:18)

OK, I'm sure this topic has been done to death but I'm new so here goes:
What do you think this number is? Is it litteral? Is this some kind of code? It seems to be telling us a riddle. One that someone with wisdom should be able to figure out.

And...GO:

This is why I have posted what I have...its more then just Nero though...if you put all the scriptures together describing the beast you get a clearer idea of who the beast is...for instance one of the first views of beast is this:

Revelation 13

The Beast from the Sea

1 Then I[a] stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns,[b] and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. 2 Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. 4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?

From my studies here so far...the beast has seven heads...the beast is Rome....but it has SEVEN heads ...ONE of those heads is Nero. Each head stands for a ruler of Rome...

Revelation 17:10-12
10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. 11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition. 12 The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have
received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority
for one hour as kings with the beast.

When Nero killed himself...dying by the sword just as John said he would in Revelation. When Nero died, civil war broke out in Rome and history shows us it was very, very bad...plus alot of supernatural things were happening at the time too. In one commentary what appeared to be a star pointing as a sword down over Jersulm (this was before Rome went after then in 70 AD. Nero killed himself in 68 AD. If I remember right a cow gave birth to a lamb...all sorts of werid things were going on. (signs and wonders)

Nero had slaughtered Christians in horrible ways...he was a sexual prevert that had a young boy casrated and 'married him', killed his own mother, kicked a pregnant wife to death (this was before the slave boy) and later married another man. Nero made war with the saints, he overcame them...had many, many killed AND proclaimed himself a god. No ruler of Rome ever did that before. They all were declared gods after their death, but not while they were living. If the Christians did not literally woship Nero it was considered treason and they were put to death. They had to go into hiding to woship God at this time.

When he died his blood line died with him and civil war broke out and Roman almost fell as a direct result of his death! This is the beast that suffers the fatal head wound but lives. As the scripture says there was to rise another 'head'...another ruler in Rome...and restored Rome. 3 And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. 4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?
So while Nero did die, his death nearly destroyed Rome...but Rome's deadly wound was healed and all the world marveled.

Image if all of Washington DC was wiped out...we lost all the 'heads' of our country ...the US would be on the verge of literally crumbling...falling apart. Can you image what things would be like? Back then things weren't set up as well as we have if something happened to the president...we lose one 'head' we quickly enstate the 'next head' which would be the vice president and things wouldn't get too rough for us, right? Back then they needed a heir to take over if something happened to the ruler. Rulers were not voted in they went by a blood line. Nero had no children, nor a wife when he died. There were no living relatives at all to take over cause he had killed all of them. So the Roman government literally fell apart on his death and a horrible civil war broke out.

But remember, Nero is ONE head on the body of the seven headed beast...

In order to fully understand this and how viewing that much of (but not all) of Revelation is in the past, a person has to study the historal evidence. John wrote Revelation during the reign of Nero. If there had been writers after him, we could study that and what took place, but all we have is the historal evidence of the time John lived in and beyond. Nero was the one that had Paul beheaded too by the way.
http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/kgbr.pdf

There, I put it in my own words so if it doesn't make sense, then I don't know what to say!

God bless
WhiteStar

ForeverEndeavor · Nov 19, 2005

Ahh..the socratic method! I'm glad you are willing to abandon your position if you are shown to be wrong. Alot of people aren't willing to do this and will never find out the truth because of it. As far as my original post, I was really just trying to get a dialogue going on the subject. I'm not quite sure about it yet. As far as my rapture position, I suppose it would be pre-wrath but I hate labels. Plus I don't agree completely with Marvin Rosenthal who coined that phrase. So I would really like to avoid putting a label to my position but would rather just explain it bit by bit. I am more than happy to answer any questions though. It's nice to have an intelligent conversation instead of just defending my position from people who are not studied up on the subject and don't really know why they beleive what they beleive.

whitestar · Nov 19, 2005

ForeverEndeavor said:
Ahh..the socratic method! I'm glad you are willing to abandon your position if you are shown to be wrong. Alot of people aren't willing to do this and will never find out the truth because of it. As far as my original post, I was really just trying to get a dialogue going on the subject. I'm not quite sure about it yet. As far as my rapture position, I suppose it would be pre-wrath but I hate labels. Plus I don't agree completely with Marvin Rosenthal who coined that phrase. So I would really like to avoid putting a label to my position but would rather just explain it bit by bit. I am more than happy to answer any questions though. It's nice to have an intelligent conversation instead of just defending my position from people who are not studied up on the subject and don't really know why they beleive what they beleive.

Yea I would like to meet the folks who came up with these 'labels'...sheesh. Have of them make no sense...or a person doesn't fully agree with 'everything' in that viewpoint, so yes it can be misleading. I was just trying to get a handle on where your thinking was coming from so it makes more sense to me.

Oh sure, I can't tell you how many times I have changed my viewpoint as I learn more! I hate to admit this, its rather embarassing now...but when I first started posting on message boards, I believed that God used evolution in creation...I had grown up with evolution being presented as fact in the schools, on TV, etc, etc, and didn't see any conflict with God using this....of course that also landed me in the old earth theroy which I hadn't even heard of this 'new earth' vs 'old earth' stuff.... The more I studied evolution though from a Christian point of view, the more I saw the flaws in it and now alot of lies have been exposed about it...

So of course I no longer believe in marco evolution...that we came from apes or slime! lol. awww well...live and learn. I will now go back over the verses you posted after I finish up supper here.

Thanks for not just bashing my ideas either.

God bless
WhiteStar

FreeinChrist · Nov 19, 2005

ForeverEndeavor said:
So you think the tribulation = Gods Wrath? You think they are synonymous? How about backing that up with some scripture?

By the way, if you're going to argue with me, make sure you know what I said. You are giving arguments against things I agree wih. And let's not have any more statements that are your opinions being presented as fact. If it is a fact, give the reference.

Oh, I have been reading what you have written FE.
Doesn't change what I wrote about assuming and how you made assumptions in regards to your opinion of pretribbers.

ForeverEndeavor · Nov 19, 2005

It's actually kind of ironic but you are solidifying my opinions as we speak. Besides, you make it sound like I am attacking pre-tribbers. I am not. I am only voicing my experience regarding why people beleive this theory. And the more you type, the more evidence I have to support that idea. Oh yeah, and quit avoiding the subject.

666

Senior Veteran

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Active Member

Veteran

Veteran

Active Member

Veteran

CF Advisory team

Active Member

Active Member

CF Advisory team

Active Member

CF Advisory team

Active Member

Veteran

Active Member

Veteran

CF Advisory team

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency